Craig, No doubt, I didn't hear him say that and was just asking. If he said that he was then I would have believed him right there, but hadn't heard a thing. -Steve
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 20:04:14 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK I also have doubts about a CWG's ability to resolve this particular situation, but that's too long of an email to write today. Xander mentioned he had prepaid for a year, and said he would block the proposal. This, having never had any reason to doubt what he says, means to me he is still a member. This is an example of exactly what some are worried about. You just met him two weeks ago, Why the doubt? On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]> wrote: Xander, I really am not meaning to be rude in asking, but are you even still a member? You showed up a couple weeks ago for the first time since I've been at SYNHAK and everyone I talked to said that you were no long a part of SYNHAK. I'm glad you're back, I'm just confused and wondering if you have any right to block the proposal. I've said many times, and I think Torrie has demonstrated, that until she takes a break from the community and uses the time to reflect and realize that she has been causing some serious issues dividing the community there is no working it out. After last night she has shown me that she isn't truly sorry or even understands what it is that she has done or said, and I am not the only one that feels this way. A Community Working Group will only work if both parties are willing to be truthful and work it out, and I know Torrie says that she is, but she has continually shown that she isn't and always feels like she is being attacked. This is not meant as a way to attack or punish her, but address the issues she has caused. -Steve Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 18:22:24 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK I will block this proposal if it is put up to a vote this Tuesday. It also saddens me that this is coming up once again and the discussion on the CWG has been silent. Torrie is leaving for two weeks. I agree with Chris that it is not fair for us to try to push something like this through while she is away. Let's get the CWG moving if we want to resolve this. A meeting where five or more of us gang up on one person is not productive. Hell, we could even stage an "intervention" of sorts so that way the parties that need to discuss this can be present and no one else needs to be bothered by this because, frankly, the people who are not involved in this conflict are tired of hearing about it and tired of having our meetings involving "discussion" about this. Believing that we could do any sort of conflict resolution in the discussion section of our meetings was a failure on all of our parts. If someone has problems with another member, they should be part of the solution and help with the CWG. The methods proposed for the CWG to use are mature, effective methods for conflict resolution. I feel creating opportunities for us to discuss these personal conflicts all at once is terribly ineffective and it airs all of synhak's dirty laundry on the mailing list. Not only that but no one listens to each other when we discuss this stuff at meetings. I see a lot of wrong on every side of this issue. No one is blameless in this scenario. Removing Torrie from synhak won't improve our culture. It just sets a precedent of us taking the easy way out of conflict resolution. I would be proud to be the bigger person and set a great example in our entire community by resolving this conflict in a polite, non argumentative manner so everyone is satisfied. I am hoping others strive for that sort of pride. I am begging all of our members to *please* give the CWG a chance. I really believe that we can make a big difference and improve the future of synhak. No issue is too big or complicated that it can't be sorted out by those willing to sit down and discuss it. Torrie said multiple times last night that she would love to discuss this in a safe place with a mediator. Let's slowly put down our pitchforks and raise our methods of effective, non violent communication! It'll be super fun! Alright, no it won't be but I think we'll all be a lot happier with ourselves if we do. -Xander On May 14, 2014 4:57 PM, "Steve Radonich IV" <[email protected]> wrote: Chris, Maybe I'm not explaining it right, but we will consense on the original proposal that has been up for 2 1/2 weeks on Tuesday. Discuss the new proposal to amend it Tuesday, and consense on the second meeting. There is no violation of that rule there and therefore isn't valid. -Steve Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:55:23 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK Steve, After proposals are modified, they are considered new proposals. Per the meeting on February 25, 2014, which you were present at: ** “ Proposals must be sent in full to [email protected], with the exact wording that will be decided upon. Any modifications to the text must be considered as a wholly new proposal.” This was approved by the membership. Your convoluted if-thens system does not change this. So, yes, this is a new proposal. It's gotta be discussed at next week's meeting. Sincerely, Chris Egeland PS: Is the NES in the basement mine or yours? On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]> wrote: Chris, Following the rules is technically impossible as they contradict themselves, but I am going to amend this proposal as follows: To change the wording of the original proposal to remove Torrie from SynHak to read as follows: To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for a period of 180 days. End Proposal. So Tuesday May 20th we will consense on the proposal that I proposed on April 30th that reads: I am proposing the following: The removal of Torrie Fischer from the SYNHAK community for the following reasons. * Negatively talking about SYNHAK affecting the public opinion of the community on the mailing lists, examples being: * "Never started SYNHAK, the Akron Hackerspace." - Wed, April 30 2014 17:09 * "Then I hear that I'm being removed as Treasurer due to Devin and Andy's persecution complex, so I started looking for housing in the San Francisco because SYNHAK is dead to me." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59 * "It died months ago when I was convinced to rescind my proposal to remove Justin from the board." - Wed, April 30 2014 15:59 * "Congrats! I'm so proud of everyone. We are now (in)famous within the hacker communities." - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 * "RIP SYNHAK. Killed by bystander apathy." - Wed, April 30 2014 14:29 * Publicly attacking Steve Radonich IV and Andy B. on the mailing list by unjustly calling them names, examples being: * "Remember, folks: you voted this mental midget of a person onto the board :)" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards Andy * "Remember, folks: I'm someone who should be put up with! You all decided to go along with his plan to introduce more rules and bureaucracy to stop someone from forcing the community to address a situation where they feel completely unsafe!" - Wed, April 30 2014 12:49 - Directed towards Steve * "A community that doesn't treat me like some strange sexual fascination as if my genitals define who I am." - Wed, April 30 2014 17:09 - Directed towards Steve * "Steve loves rules and has an authoritarian stance on everything. Thats the only reasonable answer that can explain this majestic piece of legalese:" - Wed, April 30 2014 16:12 - Directed towards Steve * Using her position of Treasurer to target those she has a disagreement with: * "Devin - It will be reimbursed just not now, but me and Andy have been told no on reimbursements and just only us. Given reciepts to others to get the money. Someone took something the wrong way, and they are attacking back using the position as treasurer. But this needs to stop right now, because it is discriminatory." - Tue, April 29 2014 - Meeting Minutes It is with these issues, and others that I may not even be aware of, that I feel Torrie Fischer is no longer someone SYNHAK can afford to have around. Causing division and strife within the community, then refusing to take responsibility for it. She has shown that she can't be trusted in a position of power within SYNHAK as she uses it as a weapon on her personal enemies. Personally attacking members, calling them transphobes when there is no evidence of such, talking negatively about SYNHAK, and saying that SYNHAK is dead are all reasons for removal. Plus if she thinks it's dead then there is no reason for her to be here any ways as it will just cause trouble. This proposal has been on the table for a few weeks, and has been discussed at 2 meetings now. The proposal that I proposed today would just amend it to read as stated above. Certainly that does not violate any rules. -Steve Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:40:46 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK Steve, Keep it professional. I'm not insulting you, so I demand that you refrain from doing so to me. Who wrote the rules on the Proposals page is irrelevant. It was consensed upon January 1, 2013. As such, it is policy. As I mentioned, your convoluted system of if-thens did absolutely nothing to change the requirement that proposals are required to be discussed at one meeting, then consensed upon at the following meeting. As someone who has been involved with SYN/HAK since day one, I can tell you this is always how we have done things and that I am certain that this is how the policy works. If you wish to change that requirement, submit a proposal to do so. Otherwise, I am demanding that you follow our policies as written, and will be keeping an eye on things to ensure that you do so. Sincerely, Chris Egeland On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]> wrote: Chris maybe you don't understand english, or whoever wrote these rules doesn't but they are contradictory. I specifically remember on a number of occasions where a proposal was brought up on a tuesday/wednesday and decided on at the next meeting as the rules state: * Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at least one week before any decision is mate.* Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately follows that one week discussion period. A week being defined as 7 days, so if we count, Wednesday (1), Thursday (2), Friday (3), Saturday (4), Sunday (5), Monday (6), and Tuesday (7) May 20. And the conclusion of the one week discussion would be Tuesday May 20th. These rules contradict themselves so much that people can pick and choose which ones to go by. I am well aware of the policies in place, and if you choose to go forward with that, then this would be an amendment to reword the proposal, and the original proposal consensed on next week. Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:11:58 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK This is upsetting to say the least. Steve, you seem to be gungho about changing policy at SYN/HAK. I respect that. There is definitely some change needed within SYN/HAK. However, it's very upsetting to see the person who is unquestionably the most adamant about changing policy utterly failing to understand our current policies. I find it dangerous to have someone so unfamiliar with existing policy being so adamant about changing it. We will NOT be consensing on this on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 because this is a new proposal. The wording and terms of the proposal have materially changed. It is required by policy that this proposal be discussed at the next meeting. The earliest this proposal could come to consensus is Tuesday May 27, 2014. My logic is that on the official Proposals policy page (which was adopted almost a year and a half ago), it states the following: Proposals are discussed for one meeting, and decided upon at the meeting that immediately follows. Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at least one week before any decision is made. During that week, discussion must happen during a regular weekly meeting. Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately follows that one week discussion period. You need to be at the deciding meeting to block consensus or otherwise contribute to the decision. Your convoluted system of if-thens did not change the fact that proposals are required to be announced at a meeting and then are eligible to be consensed upon at the next meeting. As such, I hold that this proposal must be discussed at next Tuesday's meeting. Also, I find this to be an extraordinarily bad faith attempt to remove someone, given that just yesterday at the meeting she made it known that she will be out of town for two weeks starting tomorrow. To me, this sounds like "Hey guys, she's gonna be out of town, let's meet in secret and kick her out of SYN/HAK." > *** Torrie - so that's a really amazing idea, but I'm leaving for San > Francisco thursday but I'm coming back in 2 weeks. Can we meet thursday to > work out a plan Sincerely, Chris Egeland On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]> wrote: Following the events at last nights meeting, and discussion with many different members, I've decided to move forward with my proposal to have Torrie removed from the SYNHAK community. I am going to make some slight modifications to it below and please give your feedback, this will be concensed (Spelling?) on next Tuesday. The proposal is as follows: To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for a period of 180 days. End Proposal. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
